Comment author: johnlawrenceaspden 07 April 2016 04:13:07PM 0 points [-]

If the problem is that our best authors went elsewhere, would it not be a good idea for fans to take their best writing and re-post it here for them? I mean, if they'd actually prefer that not to happen, then ok. But are we sure about that?

What were their stated reasons for leaving? What were their real reasons?

Comment author: Error 07 April 2016 05:29:53PM 1 point [-]

If I remember right, the most recent survey asked those exact questions. So we may well find out.

Comment author: Viliam 06 April 2016 01:33:24PM 3 points [-]

From the position of author, the important difference between posting an article here and posting an article on my personal webpage is the control over the discussion.

Posting here is convenient: the whole website is already set up and maintained, I just need to write the text. My article will immediately get many readers, and it will be approximately the kind of readers I want. Even the moderation by crowd is provided for free.

On the other hand, the cost of the convenience is my freedom to make different choices. If I have opinions on the website functionality or design, it's not my choice. I have to think whether my topic is appropriate for the website; while on my own blog I can post anything. If I disagree with the moderation, too bad, I am just one among many voters. On my own blog I can make the ultimate decisions, block the users I don't like, and keep the debate nice according to my criteria of niceness.

Comment author: Error 06 April 2016 09:23:40PM 3 points [-]

One of the interesting things about NNTP's structure is that the moderator and the host don't need to be the same entity or even use the same software. The same goes for UX elements. It would be entirely possible to run something-that-looks-like-a-blog on your own site, have it use hypothetical-lesswrong-hosted NNTP for hosting its content (buying you native-client support for users who want it), and still have ultimate control over who can post what. I'll be describing how that works at some point.

It would rely on goodwill from the LW hosts, of course; but the worst they could do is stop hosting you -- and they could not hold your content hostage as long as someone, somewhere, has kept a local cache of it. You could even self-host and still interoperate with the site, because the system was designed to be decentralized even though it doesn't have to be used that way.

Comment author: Lumifer 06 April 2016 07:19:00PM *  2 points [-]

At some point the Internet decided it didn't feel like using a standard protocol for discussion anymore

That's an interesting point. What are the reasons NNTP and Usenet got essentially discarded? Are some of these reasons good ones?

Comment author: Error 06 April 2016 08:32:56PM *  2 points [-]

My opinion? Convenience. It's more convenient for the user to not have to configure a reader, and it's more convenient for the developer of the forum to not conform to a standard. (edit: I would add 'mobility', but that wasn't an issue until long after the transition)

And its more convenient for the owner's monetization to not have an easy way to clone their content. Or view it without ads. What Dan said elsewhere about all the major IM players ditching XMPP applies.

[Edited to add: This isn't even just an NNTP thing. Everything has been absorbed by HTTP these days. Users forgot that the web was not the net, and somewhere along the line developers did too.]

Comment author: Lumifer 06 April 2016 06:39:23PM 1 point [-]

Disqus is just a SaaS provider for a commenting subsystem. The trick is to integrate comments for/from multiple websites into something whole.

Comment author: Error 06 April 2016 07:04:32PM *  3 points [-]

Solving such integration and interoperability problems is what standards are for. At some point the Internet decided it didn't feel like using a standard protocol for discussion anymore, which is why it's even a problem in the first place.

(http is not a discussion protocol. Not that I think you believe it is, just preempting the obvious objection)

Comment author: buybuydandavis 06 April 2016 06:33:33AM 1 point [-]

A number of comments expressed that getting people to install nntp clients was probably a non-starter. A browser client is all you're going to get.

A javascript client seemed like a solution to that.

Comment author: Error 06 April 2016 01:35:14PM 2 points [-]

It is a non-starter, but there are ways to get the equivalent of a client in a web browser without using javascript to do it.

Comment author: DanArmak 05 April 2016 06:29:28PM 2 points [-]

Thanks for making that clear. I can't foresee what your argument for NNTP on the backend is going to be, so I'm interested in reading your further posts on it.

Comment author: Error 05 April 2016 10:01:00PM 3 points [-]

I appreciate both your encouragement and your criticism.

Comment author: gjm 05 April 2016 07:43:59PM 1 point [-]

I'm not going to suggest Usenet itself

Of course this deals with the Google Groups objection simply by making it impossible to use Google Groups :-).

Comment author: Error 05 April 2016 07:45:50PM 2 points [-]

That is a feature, not a bug. :-P

Comment author: DanArmak 05 April 2016 07:14:04PM 2 points [-]

Well, I at least have used NNTP (and also skimmed the RFC as a refresher just now) and still need to be convinced that it's better than the status quo.

Comment author: Error 05 April 2016 07:34:51PM *  3 points [-]

Fair enough. :-)

ETA: Also, it is relevant that there is an RFC for you to skim, and that it gets read by many, many people not necessarily associated with us.

Comment author: Lumifer 05 April 2016 07:16:44PM 1 point [-]

We are talking about the acceptable format for messages as they are processed and stored by the system, right? Ease of input is a separate issue and your editor can and should allow you to write in whatever way you find most comfortable.

Comment author: Error 05 April 2016 07:30:58PM 1 point [-]

The format for server-side processing and storage should be the input format unless there is specific cause not to use it (3.2). Conversion to display formats should be done client-side and as late as possible. HTML, as Dan says, is a display format.

(this distinction exists even for server-side clients, e.g. web clients)

Comment author: DanArmak 05 April 2016 06:32:00PM 2 points [-]

A subset of HTML is still unsuited to human editing. Even more so than full HTML, because it doesn't have the justification of being a complex and extendable syntax. A superset of markdown would be much more usable, for people writing plaintext, than a subset of HTML. Especially if, as now, the majority of posts and comments require more or less only regular markdown and no superset features like tables.

Comment author: Error 05 April 2016 07:20:37PM 1 point [-]

Asciidoc might be an alternative when more power is needed. I haven't used it, but ESR once said that it does markdown's job better than Markdown itself.

HTML is wholly unsuited to human editing or even reading. I blame it for ruining email. Well, that and top-posting.

View more: Prev | Next

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit